I'm no Republican and in ordinary times I'd be as happy as anyone to see Curt Weldon defeated for re-election. But the fact is that he is practically the only voice in Congress with the courage to challenge this administration's cover-up of its "Able Danger" program. How looney is the guy? Well, about as looney as Louis Freeh, Clinton's Director of the FBI. Here, in a Wall Sreet Journal essay published last November 17, is what Freeh had to say about the need for an independent investigation of the Able Danger program: "Even the most junior investigator would immediately know that the name and photo ID of Atta in 2000 is precisely the kind of tactical intelligence the FBI has many times employed to prevent attacks and arrest terrorists. Yet the 9/11 Commission inexplicably concluded that it 'was not historically significant.' This astounding conclusion--in combination with the failure to investigate Able Danger and incorporate it into its findings--raises serious challenges to the commission's credibility and, if the facts prove out, might just render the commission historically insignificant itself. … No wonder the 9/11 families were outraged by these revelations and called for a "new" commission to investigate."

There are so many issues on which the so-called progressive press, of which breezy ol' Salon surely counts itself a card-carrying member, is just as lockstep conformist, blind, and intolerant as the fulminating James Dobsons and Stephen Baldwins of this world. You. Instead of celebrating the demise of a cranky, unpredictable Republican who at least shows some guts and independence of mind, you should look beyond the surfaces to see if what he says has any merit. Oh, I forgot! You've already investigated 911 and found the official report to be oh so accurate. Right, and Condi Rice was telling the truth when she claimed she never got Tenet's four-alarm briefing two months before the attack. And of course Building 7 of the World Trade Center just felt apart from fright.

Salon readers who count themselves, as I do, as intelligent, freethinking progressives, should go to Google video and watch "911 Mysteries" and "911 Press For Truth", two superb documentaries that in a free society would be showing on the History Channel, or even PBS, and then check in to the www.911scholarsfor truth.com to find out what this magazine has its head so far up its posterior on the issue. While you're doing that, take a look at the list of people on www.patriotsquestion911.com--they include the likes of Freeh, Max Cleland, and Scott Ritter--to see other nutjobs who happen to believe that this government is lying through its teeth about Able Danger and the 911 attacks that merely have defined history in our time.

Michael Scherer, when are you going grow up and become a real reporter?

Seems like a good article to me, a reader from the red area of Alabama. With our politicians trying to beat each other in cutting and running toward anything mouthed by Bush or Alabama's own Rice, it is refreshing to read about a Congressional race with real issues.

Over the last several years of his congressional career, Curt Weldon has spent less time in Washington serving the needs of his constituents, and more time serving the needs... of Curt Weldon.

This in and of itself is nothing special in Washington, but his district is undergoing very significant demographic shifts which, as part of the natural order of things, make him unfit to continue representing the 7th district. Aging Baby Boomers made wealthy on capital gains (and voting Republican to keep their taxes low) are streaming out of the district to bigger McMansions in Chester, Berks, and northern Montgomery counties. They are being replaced by younger, less wealthy, more liberal people (like yours truly, who moved to this district 6 years ago) who enjoy the affordable (yet slightly cramped) housing and efficient public transportation system.

This shift, combined with the Iraq war (I believe Pennsylvania has had a higher per capita combat death rate than any other Northeastern state) and a capable challenger in Joe Sestak, make the time perfect for a change.

As far as Able Danger, "carefulreader": One conspiracy theory does not a congressional career make. Even if Weldon were 100% right, and the FBI knew Atta was the 9/11 ringleader during the last year of the Clinton administration, what does it prove? It's already conventional wisdom that both Clinton and Bush share joint responsibility for not taking more action against Al-Qaeda sooner. And it's also well known that there was a "wall" between the FBI and CIA, in fact I believe that's why they're now under some form of joint oversight. I'm sorry, especially since this seems to be something you (and Curt) care deeply about, but there's just no "meat" in this conspiracy theory.

OK back to work for me, which means in part digging through all my mail (including a dozen Weldon flyers lambasting Sestak for "living outside the district for 30 years". He was in the MILITARY.... duh?)

-Adam in Philly

Is this an accurate quote from the debate?

"We shouldn't cut and run," Weldon said at the debate. "What we should do is not allow the decisions not to be made by Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld," he said.

If so, it's clear to see why he's losing...implying with tone that he's independent of the administration on Iraq, and with his grammar ceding power directly to those who have misused it so far.

Good luck, Curt!

There is absolutely no downside. No one could a worse job and perhaps just mixing it up will at least produce something new.

Amazingly enough, Curt Weldon has taken up what should be every Democrat's response to "What are you going to do differently in Iraq?"

The correct answer is to REALLY listen to the commanders on the ground. That listening should consist of serious hearings by the Armed Services Committees and bringing the commanders in to speak for themselves without the White House reality-denying machine keeping them quiet. (Weldon's party is in charge, where are those hearings?)

After we get a reality based picture of what is going on in Iraq and Afghanistan, then we can answer the question of what we would do differently. The Democrats fall into the trap of trying to answer a question that is unanswerable due to this administrations hypersecrecy.

So I'd answer: "Until we get a picture of what is actually going on on the ground, we can't formulate a reality-based plan. Once we get control of Congress and get to REALLY listen to the commanders on the ground, then we can work together to formulate a rational plan."

Cheers,